anyone good at Counter argument?
Posted: 2003-01-14 12:02am
I need to find something to respond to this post someone made...not here but at a different website. If anyone is able to read, decipher and can give me a good analysis of his work that would be appreciate. I would of course give you full credit! Thanks...and no I have no idea what he's talking about.
I have two arguments:
1. "Discovery" is not an entirely wrong characterization.
2. Chinese expedition does not qualify as a discovery from a world historical perspective.
Now, one by one:
1. This whole debate about the appropriateness of the word "discovery" in relation to ethnocentrism seems a little overstretched. The populations of the Americas and the Old World didn't have cultural contact for so many thousands of years. That mutual isolation was brought to an end through the "agency" of some group of people, in this case people from the Old World. America's indigenous people never set sail or even attempted exploring outside their own territories and it is doubtful that they would have "discovered" Old World before the latter discovered the "New World". If some people are allergic to the term discovery in a biological sense (humans discovering non-human phenomena) then how about the sense of discovering the existence of mutual isolation of civilizations?
2. Chinese fleet might have explored and mapped the Americas before the Europeans but was that consequential for world history? No. Of course, these stories and maps probably trickled through various channels into the hands of Europeans and they made use of them. However, it never had the same world-historical effect as Columbus’ voyages had, i.e. opening the gates for more expeditions and ever-increasing waves of migrations. Similar to scientific discoveries, several people and efforts might get a glimpse of something important at various times but only later someone or group conclusively shows the existence of a phenomena after which everybody takes that as a given and a whole new wave of activity is triggered. Chinese explorations do not qualify as a discovery in this sense but Columbus’ do.
I have two arguments:
1. "Discovery" is not an entirely wrong characterization.
2. Chinese expedition does not qualify as a discovery from a world historical perspective.
Now, one by one:
1. This whole debate about the appropriateness of the word "discovery" in relation to ethnocentrism seems a little overstretched. The populations of the Americas and the Old World didn't have cultural contact for so many thousands of years. That mutual isolation was brought to an end through the "agency" of some group of people, in this case people from the Old World. America's indigenous people never set sail or even attempted exploring outside their own territories and it is doubtful that they would have "discovered" Old World before the latter discovered the "New World". If some people are allergic to the term discovery in a biological sense (humans discovering non-human phenomena) then how about the sense of discovering the existence of mutual isolation of civilizations?
2. Chinese fleet might have explored and mapped the Americas before the Europeans but was that consequential for world history? No. Of course, these stories and maps probably trickled through various channels into the hands of Europeans and they made use of them. However, it never had the same world-historical effect as Columbus’ voyages had, i.e. opening the gates for more expeditions and ever-increasing waves of migrations. Similar to scientific discoveries, several people and efforts might get a glimpse of something important at various times but only later someone or group conclusively shows the existence of a phenomena after which everybody takes that as a given and a whole new wave of activity is triggered. Chinese explorations do not qualify as a discovery in this sense but Columbus’ do.
